Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1421 | control, N = 721 | treatment, N = 701 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 140 | 50.66 ± 12.64 (25 - 74) | 51.24 ± 12.39 (25 - 74) | 50.09 ± 12.95 (28 - 73) | 0.591 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 142 | 0.915 | |||
f | 109 (77%) | 55 (76%) | 54 (77%) | ||
m | 33 (23%) | 17 (24%) | 16 (23%) | ||
occupation | 142 | 0.704 | |||
day_training | 2 (1.4%) | 2 (2.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 18 (13%) | 9 (12%) | 9 (13%) | ||
homemaker | 12 (8.5%) | 5 (6.9%) | 7 (10%) | ||
other | 2 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
part_time | 25 (18%) | 12 (17%) | 13 (19%) | ||
retired | 38 (27%) | 19 (26%) | 19 (27%) | ||
self_employ | 7 (4.9%) | 4 (5.6%) | 3 (4.3%) | ||
student | 2 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.4%) | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
unemploy | 34 (24%) | 20 (28%) | 14 (20%) | ||
marital | 142 | 0.818 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
divore | 15 (11%) | 10 (14%) | 5 (7.1%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (2.8%) | 2 (2.8%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
married | 39 (27%) | 20 (28%) | 19 (27%) | ||
none | 72 (51%) | 34 (47%) | 38 (54%) | ||
seperation | 3 (2.1%) | 2 (2.8%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
widow | 8 (5.6%) | 4 (5.6%) | 4 (5.7%) | ||
edu | 142 | 0.176 | |||
bachelor | 35 (25%) | 13 (18%) | 22 (31%) | ||
diploma | 27 (19%) | 18 (25%) | 9 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 4 (2.8%) | 3 (4.2%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
postgraduate | 12 (8.5%) | 5 (6.9%) | 7 (10%) | ||
primary | 9 (6.3%) | 3 (4.2%) | 6 (8.6%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 16 (11%) | 9 (12%) | 7 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 32 (23%) | 19 (26%) | 13 (19%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 7 (4.9%) | 2 (2.8%) | 5 (7.1%) | ||
fam_income | 142 | 0.980 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (4.2%) | 2 (2.8%) | 4 (5.7%) | ||
12001_14000 | 7 (4.9%) | 3 (4.2%) | 4 (5.7%) | ||
14001_16000 | 8 (5.6%) | 3 (4.2%) | 5 (7.1%) | ||
16001_18000 | 4 (2.8%) | 2 (2.8%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
18001_20000 | 6 (4.2%) | 4 (5.6%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
20001_above | 27 (19%) | 15 (21%) | 12 (17%) | ||
2001_4000 | 20 (14%) | 11 (15%) | 9 (13%) | ||
4001_6000 | 14 (9.9%) | 6 (8.3%) | 8 (11%) | ||
6001_8000 | 12 (8.5%) | 7 (9.7%) | 5 (7.1%) | ||
8001_10000 | 11 (7.7%) | 5 (6.9%) | 6 (8.6%) | ||
below_2000 | 27 (19%) | 14 (19%) | 13 (19%) | ||
medication | 142 | 125 (88%) | 63 (88%) | 62 (89%) | 0.844 |
onset_duration | 139 | 15.17 ± 10.19 (0 - 56) | 15.80 ± 10.86 (0 - 56) | 14.49 ± 9.45 (0 - 35) | 0.451 |
Unknown | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||
onset_age | 137 | 35.72 ± 13.94 (10 - 65) | 35.28 ± 12.65 (10 - 61) | 36.17 ± 15.25 (14 - 65) | 0.709 |
Unknown | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1421 | control, N = 721 | treatment, N = 701 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 142 | 3.19 ± 1.17 (1 - 5) | 3.25 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.13 ± 1.12 (1 - 5) | 0.539 |
recovery_stage_b | 142 | 17.93 ± 2.79 (8 - 24) | 17.89 ± 2.91 (8 - 24) | 17.97 ± 2.69 (13 - 24) | 0.861 |
ras_confidence | 142 | 29.97 ± 5.14 (15 - 45) | 29.83 ± 4.84 (15 - 40) | 30.11 ± 5.47 (18 - 45) | 0.746 |
ras_willingness | 142 | 11.79 ± 2.08 (5 - 15) | 11.67 ± 2.06 (5 - 15) | 11.91 ± 2.11 (7 - 15) | 0.480 |
ras_goal | 142 | 17.34 ± 3.10 (11 - 25) | 17.12 ± 2.88 (11 - 24) | 17.56 ± 3.33 (11 - 25) | 0.409 |
ras_reliance | 142 | 13.20 ± 2.93 (5 - 20) | 12.99 ± 2.79 (5 - 18) | 13.41 ± 3.06 (7 - 20) | 0.385 |
ras_domination | 142 | 9.92 ± 2.40 (3 - 15) | 10.17 ± 2.30 (3 - 15) | 9.67 ± 2.49 (3 - 15) | 0.221 |
symptom | 142 | 29.92 ± 9.34 (14 - 56) | 29.81 ± 9.60 (14 - 55) | 30.04 ± 9.12 (15 - 56) | 0.880 |
slof_work | 142 | 22.42 ± 4.82 (10 - 30) | 22.75 ± 4.43 (13 - 30) | 22.07 ± 5.20 (10 - 30) | 0.403 |
slof_relationship | 142 | 25.15 ± 6.02 (9 - 35) | 24.82 ± 6.05 (9 - 35) | 25.49 ± 6.01 (11 - 35) | 0.511 |
satisfaction | 142 | 20.50 ± 7.21 (5 - 35) | 19.93 ± 6.77 (5 - 33) | 21.09 ± 7.65 (5 - 35) | 0.342 |
mhc_emotional | 142 | 10.90 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 10.64 ± 3.69 (3 - 17) | 11.17 ± 3.93 (3 - 18) | 0.406 |
mhc_social | 142 | 14.96 ± 5.66 (5 - 30) | 14.67 ± 5.59 (5 - 30) | 15.27 ± 5.75 (5 - 29) | 0.526 |
mhc_psychological | 142 | 21.89 ± 6.45 (6 - 36) | 21.78 ± 6.07 (7 - 36) | 22.00 ± 6.87 (6 - 36) | 0.838 |
resilisnce | 142 | 16.65 ± 4.71 (6 - 30) | 16.26 ± 4.18 (6 - 24) | 17.04 ± 5.21 (6 - 30) | 0.327 |
social_provision | 142 | 13.55 ± 2.87 (5 - 20) | 13.10 ± 2.63 (5 - 20) | 14.01 ± 3.05 (5 - 20) | 0.057 |
els_value_living | 142 | 16.94 ± 3.16 (5 - 25) | 16.58 ± 2.92 (6 - 22) | 17.30 ± 3.37 (5 - 25) | 0.177 |
els_life_fulfill | 142 | 12.71 ± 3.44 (4 - 20) | 12.35 ± 3.26 (5 - 19) | 13.09 ± 3.59 (4 - 20) | 0.202 |
els | 142 | 29.65 ± 6.00 (9 - 45) | 28.93 ± 5.50 (11 - 38) | 30.39 ± 6.43 (9 - 45) | 0.149 |
social_connect | 142 | 26.58 ± 9.52 (8 - 48) | 26.75 ± 9.18 (8 - 48) | 26.40 ± 9.92 (8 - 48) | 0.828 |
shs_agency | 142 | 14.29 ± 5.18 (3 - 24) | 13.90 ± 4.77 (3 - 21) | 14.69 ± 5.57 (3 - 24) | 0.369 |
shs_pathway | 142 | 16.01 ± 4.07 (4 - 24) | 15.65 ± 3.92 (5 - 24) | 16.39 ± 4.22 (4 - 24) | 0.285 |
shs | 142 | 30.30 ± 8.85 (7 - 48) | 29.56 ± 8.32 (8 - 45) | 31.07 ± 9.36 (7 - 48) | 0.309 |
esteem | 142 | 12.60 ± 1.64 (9 - 20) | 12.62 ± 1.62 (9 - 18) | 12.57 ± 1.67 (10 - 20) | 0.847 |
mlq_search | 142 | 14.82 ± 3.53 (3 - 21) | 14.64 ± 3.34 (6 - 21) | 15.00 ± 3.72 (3 - 21) | 0.544 |
mlq_presence | 142 | 13.42 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.32 ± 3.81 (4 - 21) | 13.53 ± 4.71 (3 - 21) | 0.771 |
mlq | 142 | 28.24 ± 6.96 (6 - 42) | 27.96 ± 6.31 (10 - 40) | 28.53 ± 7.60 (6 - 42) | 0.627 |
empower | 142 | 19.24 ± 4.27 (6 - 30) | 18.93 ± 4.15 (11 - 30) | 19.56 ± 4.39 (6 - 30) | 0.383 |
ismi_resistance | 142 | 14.53 ± 2.52 (5 - 20) | 14.47 ± 2.19 (10 - 20) | 14.59 ± 2.84 (5 - 20) | 0.790 |
ismi_discrimation | 142 | 11.61 ± 3.13 (5 - 20) | 11.97 ± 3.00 (5 - 20) | 11.24 ± 3.25 (5 - 20) | 0.166 |
sss_affective | 142 | 9.94 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 10.01 ± 3.49 (3 - 18) | 9.87 ± 3.61 (3 - 18) | 0.811 |
sss_behavior | 142 | 9.66 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 9.88 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 9.44 ± 3.68 (3 - 18) | 0.494 |
sss_cognitive | 142 | 8.20 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 8.26 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 8.14 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.847 |
sss | 142 | 27.81 ± 10.15 (9 - 54) | 28.15 ± 10.19 (9 - 54) | 27.46 ± 10.16 (9 - 54) | 0.684 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.25 | 0.139 | 2.98, 3.52 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.121 | 0.197 | -0.508, 0.265 | 0.539 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.021 | 0.216 | -0.402, 0.444 | 0.922 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.466 | 0.306 | -0.133, 1.07 | 0.130 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.337 | 17.2, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.083 | 0.480 | -0.859, 1.02 | 0.864 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.493 | 0.482 | -1.44, 0.452 | 0.310 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.973 | 0.683 | -0.365, 2.31 | 0.158 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 0.607 | 28.6, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.281 | 0.864 | -1.41, 1.98 | 0.746 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.766 | 0.672 | -0.551, 2.08 | 0.258 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.998 | 0.951 | -0.866, 2.86 | 0.297 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.245 | 11.2, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.248 | 0.348 | -0.435, 0.930 | 0.478 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.403 | 0.269 | -0.929, 0.124 | 0.139 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.675 | 0.380 | -0.070, 1.42 | 0.080 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.1 | 0.373 | 16.4, 17.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.432 | 0.532 | -0.610, 1.47 | 0.417 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.116 | 0.466 | -1.03, 0.797 | 0.803 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.02 | 0.660 | -0.273, 2.31 | 0.126 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.339 | 12.3, 13.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.428 | 0.482 | -0.517, 1.37 | 0.376 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.374 | 0.371 | -0.353, 1.10 | 0.317 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.820 | 0.525 | -0.209, 1.85 | 0.123 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.276 | 9.63, 10.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.495 | 0.393 | -1.26, 0.274 | 0.209 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.431 | 0.378 | -1.17, 0.310 | 0.258 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.41 | 0.535 | 0.363, 2.46 | 0.010 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 1.106 | 27.6, 32.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.237 | 1.575 | -2.85, 3.32 | 0.880 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.321 | 0.949 | -2.18, 1.54 | 0.737 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.38 | 1.343 | -4.01, 1.25 | 0.308 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.7 | 0.567 | 21.6, 23.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.679 | 0.808 | -2.26, 0.905 | 0.402 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.351 | 0.625 | -1.58, 0.874 | 0.576 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.567 | 0.884 | -1.17, 2.30 | 0.524 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.8 | 0.706 | 23.4, 26.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.666 | 1.005 | -1.30, 2.64 | 0.509 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.549 | 0.746 | -2.01, 0.914 | 0.464 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.984 | 1.056 | -1.09, 3.05 | 0.354 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.9 | 0.855 | 18.3, 21.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.16 | 1.218 | -1.23, 3.54 | 0.344 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.671 | 0.912 | -1.12, 2.46 | 0.464 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.624 | 1.290 | -1.90, 3.15 | 0.630 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.444 | 9.77, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.533 | 0.632 | -0.706, 1.77 | 0.401 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.262 | 0.447 | -0.614, 1.14 | 0.560 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.011 | 0.632 | -1.25, 1.23 | 0.986 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.7 | 0.688 | 13.3, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.605 | 0.980 | -1.32, 2.52 | 0.538 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.776 | 0.757 | -0.707, 2.26 | 0.309 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.260 | 1.071 | -1.84, 2.36 | 0.809 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.8 | 0.788 | 20.2, 23.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.222 | 1.123 | -1.98, 2.42 | 0.843 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.805 | 0.874 | -0.908, 2.52 | 0.360 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.047 | 1.236 | -2.38, 2.47 | 0.970 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.542 | 15.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.779 | 0.772 | -0.734, 2.29 | 0.314 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.036 | 0.626 | -1.19, 1.26 | 0.955 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.75 | 0.885 | 0.010, 3.48 | 0.052 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.338 | 12.4, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.917 | 0.481 | -0.025, 1.86 | 0.058 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.634 | 0.413 | -1.44, 0.175 | 0.128 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.851 | 0.585 | -0.294, 2.00 | 0.149 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.046 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.374 | 15.8, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.717 | 0.533 | -0.328, 1.76 | 0.181 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.231 | 0.420 | -0.592, 1.05 | 0.583 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.185 | 0.594 | -0.980, 1.35 | 0.757 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.397 | 11.6, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.738 | 0.566 | -0.370, 1.85 | 0.194 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.377 | 0.386 | -0.380, 1.13 | 0.332 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.091 | 0.546 | -0.979, 1.16 | 0.868 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.9 | 0.706 | 27.5, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.46 | 1.005 | -0.515, 3.43 | 0.150 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.613 | 0.656 | -0.672, 1.90 | 0.353 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.202 | 0.928 | -1.62, 2.02 | 0.829 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.7 | 1.138 | 24.5, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.350 | 1.620 | -3.53, 2.83 | 0.829 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.07 | 1.058 | -1.00, 3.15 | 0.314 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.76 | 1.497 | -6.70, -0.828 | 0.014 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.9 | 0.609 | 12.7, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.783 | 0.867 | -0.916, 2.48 | 0.368 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.059 | 0.593 | -1.22, 1.10 | 0.922 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.889 | 0.838 | -0.754, 2.53 | 0.292 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.7 | 0.473 | 14.7, 16.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.733 | 0.674 | -0.588, 2.05 | 0.279 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.107 | 0.478 | -0.830, 1.04 | 0.823 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.128 | 0.676 | -1.20, 1.45 | 0.850 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 1.032 | 27.5, 31.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.52 | 1.471 | -1.37, 4.40 | 0.304 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.037 | 0.983 | -1.89, 1.96 | 0.970 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.01 | 1.391 | -1.72, 3.74 | 0.470 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.182 | 12.3, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.054 | 0.259 | -0.562, 0.455 | 0.837 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.128 | 0.276 | -0.413, 0.669 | 0.645 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.040 | 0.391 | -0.726, 0.806 | 0.919 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.6 | 0.413 | 13.8, 15.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.361 | 0.589 | -0.793, 1.51 | 0.540 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.489 | 0.530 | -0.550, 1.53 | 0.359 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.704 | 0.750 | -2.17, 0.766 | 0.351 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.500 | 12.3, 14.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.209 | 0.713 | -1.19, 1.61 | 0.770 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.348 | 0.573 | -0.776, 1.47 | 0.546 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.062 | 0.811 | -1.53, 1.65 | 0.940 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.0 | 0.826 | 26.3, 29.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.570 | 1.176 | -1.73, 2.88 | 0.628 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.838 | 0.967 | -1.06, 2.73 | 0.389 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.630 | 1.368 | -3.31, 2.05 | 0.647 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 0.499 | 18.0, 19.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.627 | 0.711 | -0.766, 2.02 | 0.379 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.538 | 0.497 | -0.435, 1.51 | 0.282 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.616 | 0.703 | -1.99, 0.762 | 0.384 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.294 | 13.9, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.113 | 0.418 | -0.707, 0.934 | 0.787 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.183 | 0.397 | -0.961, 0.595 | 0.646 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.849 | 0.562 | -0.252, 1.95 | 0.134 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.370 | 11.2, 12.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.729 | 0.527 | -1.76, 0.303 | 0.168 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.131 | 0.413 | -0.940, 0.678 | 0.752 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.094 | 0.584 | -1.24, 1.05 | 0.872 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.414 | 9.20, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.142 | 0.590 | -1.30, 1.01 | 0.809 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.012 | 0.454 | -0.877, 0.902 | 0.978 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.15 | 0.642 | -2.41, 0.106 | 0.077 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.88 | 0.437 | 9.02, 10.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.432 | 0.622 | -1.65, 0.788 | 0.488 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.164 | 0.476 | -1.10, 0.770 | 0.731 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.503 | 0.674 | -1.82, 0.818 | 0.458 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.26 | 0.431 | 7.42, 9.11 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.121 | 0.615 | -1.33, 1.08 | 0.844 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.417 | 0.484 | -0.531, 1.37 | 0.391 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.27 | 0.685 | -2.61, 0.076 | 0.068 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.188 | 25.8, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.696 | 1.692 | -4.01, 2.62 | 0.682 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.165 | 1.185 | -2.16, 2.49 | 0.890 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.72 | 1.676 | -6.01, 0.561 | 0.108 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.25 (95% CI [2.98, 3.52], t(200) = 23.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.27], t(200) = -0.62, p = 0.538; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.44], t(200) = 0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.07], t(200) = 1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.90])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.89 (95% CI [17.23, 18.55], t(200) = 53.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.02], t(200) = 0.17, p = 0.864; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.45], t(200) = -1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.37, 2.31], t(200) = 1.42, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.81])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.83 (95% CI [28.64, 31.02], t(200) = 49.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.41, 1.98], t(200) = 0.33, p = 0.745; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.08], t(200) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.86], t(200) = 1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.67 (95% CI [11.19, 12.15], t(200) = 47.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.93], t(200) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.12], t(200) = -1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.42], t(200) = 1.78, p = 0.076; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.69])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.12 (95% CI [16.39, 17.86], t(200) = 45.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.47], t(200) = 0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.80], t(200) = -0.25, p = 0.803; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 2.31], t(200) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.99 (95% CI [12.32, 13.65], t(200) = 38.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.37], t(200) = 0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.10], t(200) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.85], t(200) = 1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.17 (95% CI [9.63, 10.71], t(200) = 36.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.26, 0.27], t(200) = -1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.31], t(200) = -1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [0.36, 2.46], t(200) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [0.16, 1.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.81 (95% CI [27.64, 31.97], t(200) = 26.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.85, 3.32], t(200) = 0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-2.18, 1.54], t(200) = -0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.38, 95% CI [-4.01, 1.25], t(200) = -1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.52e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.75 (95% CI [21.64, 23.86], t(200) = 40.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-2.26, 0.91], t(200) = -0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.87], t(200) = -0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.17, 2.30], t(200) = 0.64, p = 0.522; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.82 (95% CI [23.44, 26.20], t(200) = 35.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.64], t(200) = 0.66, p = 0.508; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.91], t(200) = -0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-1.09, 3.05], t(200) = 0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.93 (95% CI [18.25, 21.61], t(200) = 23.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-1.23, 3.54], t(200) = 0.95, p = 0.343; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.46], t(200) = 0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.90, 3.15], t(200) = 0.48, p = 0.628; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.64 (95% CI [9.77, 11.51], t(200) = 23.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.77], t(200) = 0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.14], t(200) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.23], t(200) = -0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = -2.92e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.67 (95% CI [13.32, 16.01], t(200) = 21.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-1.32, 2.52], t(200) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.26], t(200) = 1.03, p = 0.305; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.84, 2.36], t(200) = 0.24, p = 0.808; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.78 (95% CI [20.23, 23.32], t(200) = 27.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.98, 2.42], t(200) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.52], t(200) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-2.38, 2.47], t(200) = 0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = 7.03e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.26 (95% CI [15.20, 17.33], t(200) = 30.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.29], t(200) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.26], t(200) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 7.73e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.75, 95% CI [0.01, 3.48], t(200) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [2.19e-03, 0.76])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.10 (95% CI [12.44, 13.76], t(200) = 38.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.86], t(200) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-8.56e-03, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.18], t(200) = -1.54, p = 0.125; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.00], t(200) = 1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.58 (95% CI [15.85, 17.32], t(200) = 44.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.76], t(200) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.05], t(200) = 0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.98, 1.35], t(200) = 0.31, p = 0.756; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.35 (95% CI [11.57, 13.13], t(200) = 31.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.85], t(200) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.13], t(200) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.98, 1.16], t(200) = 0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.93 (95% CI [27.55, 30.31], t(200) = 40.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.52, 3.43], t(200) = 1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.90], t(200) = 0.93, p = 0.350; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.62, 2.02], t(200) = 0.22, p = 0.828; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.75 (95% CI [24.52, 28.98], t(200) = 23.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-3.53, 2.83], t(200) = -0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-1.00, 3.15], t(200) = 1.01, p = 0.311; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.76, 95% CI [-6.70, -0.83], t(200) = -2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.69, -0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.90 (95% CI [12.71, 15.10], t(200) = 22.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.92, 2.48], t(200) = 0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.10], t(200) = -0.10, p = 0.921; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.53], t(200) = 1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.65 (95% CI [14.73, 16.58], t(200) = 33.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.05], t(200) = 1.09, p = 0.277; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.04], t(200) = 0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.45], t(200) = 0.19, p = 0.850; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.56 (95% CI [27.53, 31.58], t(200) = 28.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.52, 95% CI [-1.37, 4.40], t(200) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.96], t(200) = 0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = 4.27e-03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.72, 3.74], t(200) = 0.73, p = 0.468; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.62 (95% CI [12.27, 12.98], t(200) = 69.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.45], t(200) = -0.21, p = 0.836; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.67], t(200) = 0.46, p = 0.644; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.81], t(200) = 0.10, p = 0.919; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.64 (95% CI [13.83, 15.45], t(200) = 35.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.51], t(200) = 0.61, p = 0.540; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.53], t(200) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-2.17, 0.77], t(200) = -0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.32 (95% CI [12.34, 14.30], t(200) = 26.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.61], t(200) = 0.29, p = 0.769; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.47], t(200) = 0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.53, 1.65], t(200) = 0.08, p = 0.939; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.96 (95% CI [26.34, 29.58], t(200) = 33.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.73, 2.88], t(200) = 0.48, p = 0.628; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.73], t(200) = 0.87, p = 0.386; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-3.31, 2.05], t(200) = -0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.43e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.93 (95% CI [17.95, 19.91], t(200) = 37.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.77, 2.02], t(200) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.51], t(200) = 1.08, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.76], t(200) = -0.88, p = 0.381; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.47 (95% CI [13.90, 15.05], t(200) = 49.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.93], t(200) = 0.27, p = 0.786; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.60], t(200) = -0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.95], t(200) = 1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.78])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.97 (95% CI [11.25, 12.70], t(200) = 32.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.76, 0.30], t(200) = -1.39, p = 0.166; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.68], t(200) = -0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.05], t(200) = -0.16, p = 0.872; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.20, 10.83], t(200) = 24.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.01], t(200) = -0.24, p = 0.809; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.90], t(200) = 0.03, p = 0.978; Std. beta = 3.48e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.15, 95% CI [-2.41, 0.11], t(200) = -1.79, p = 0.073; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.88 (95% CI [9.02, 10.73], t(200) = 22.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.65, 0.79], t(200) = -0.69, p = 0.487; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.77], t(200) = -0.34, p = 0.730; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.82, 0.82], t(200) = -0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.26 (95% CI [7.42, 9.11], t(200) = 19.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.08], t(200) = -0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.37], t(200) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-2.61, 0.08], t(200) = -1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.15 (95% CI [25.82, 30.48], t(200) = 23.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-4.01, 2.62], t(200) = -0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-2.16, 2.49], t(200) = 0.14, p = 0.890; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.72, 95% CI [-6.01, 0.56], t(200) = -1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 650.506 | 660.490 | -322.253 | 644.506 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 651.459 | 671.426 | -319.729 | 639.459 | 5.047 | 3 | 0.168 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,006.730 | 1,016.714 | -500.365 | 1,000.730 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,010.084 | 1,030.052 | -499.042 | 998.084 | 2.646 | 3 | 0.450 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,226.670 | 1,236.654 | -610.335 | 1,220.670 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,224.189 | 1,244.156 | -606.094 | 1,212.189 | 8.481 | 3 | 0.037 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 847.661 | 857.644 | -420.830 | 841.661 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 848.849 | 868.816 | -418.424 | 836.849 | 4.812 | 3 | 0.186 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,037.261 | 1,047.244 | -515.630 | 1,031.261 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,037.566 | 1,057.533 | -512.783 | 1,025.566 | 5.695 | 3 | 0.127 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 989.377 | 999.361 | -491.689 | 983.377 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 982.644 | 1,002.611 | -485.322 | 970.644 | 12.733 | 3 | 0.005 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 924.483 | 934.466 | -459.241 | 918.483 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 922.770 | 942.737 | -455.385 | 910.770 | 7.713 | 3 | 0.052 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,438.213 | 1,448.197 | -716.106 | 1,432.213 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,440.872 | 1,460.840 | -714.436 | 1,428.872 | 3.341 | 3 | 0.342 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,190.793 | 1,200.777 | -592.397 | 1,184.793 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,195.863 | 1,215.830 | -591.931 | 1,183.863 | 0.930 | 3 | 0.818 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,276.845 | 1,286.828 | -635.422 | 1,270.845 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,281.066 | 1,301.033 | -634.533 | 1,269.066 | 1.779 | 3 | 0.620 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,358.822 | 1,368.806 | -676.411 | 1,352.822 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,360.974 | 1,380.942 | -674.487 | 1,348.974 | 3.848 | 3 | 0.278 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,079.377 | 1,089.361 | -536.689 | 1,073.377 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,083.948 | 1,103.915 | -535.974 | 1,071.948 | 1.430 | 3 | 0.699 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,272.412 | 1,282.395 | -633.206 | 1,266.412 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,274.951 | 1,294.918 | -631.475 | 1,262.951 | 3.461 | 3 | 0.326 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,327.859 | 1,337.843 | -660.930 | 1,321.859 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,331.983 | 1,351.950 | -659.991 | 1,319.983 | 1.877 | 3 | 0.598 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,186.792 | 1,196.775 | -590.396 | 1,180.792 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,182.312 | 1,202.279 | -585.156 | 1,170.312 | 10.480 | 3 | 0.015 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 996.527 | 1,006.511 | -495.264 | 990.527 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 993.830 | 1,013.797 | -490.915 | 981.830 | 8.697 | 3 | 0.034 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,024.153 | 1,034.137 | -509.077 | 1,018.153 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,026.631 | 1,046.598 | -507.315 | 1,014.631 | 3.522 | 3 | 0.318 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,032.375 | 1,042.358 | -513.187 | 1,026.375 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,033.985 | 1,053.953 | -510.993 | 1,021.985 | 4.389 | 3 | 0.222 |
els | null | 3 | 1,264.400 | 1,274.383 | -629.200 | 1,258.400 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,265.587 | 1,285.554 | -626.794 | 1,253.587 | 4.813 | 3 | 0.186 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,464.393 | 1,474.376 | -729.196 | 1,458.393 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,462.365 | 1,482.332 | -725.182 | 1,450.365 | 8.028 | 3 | 0.045 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,207.528 | 1,217.512 | -600.764 | 1,201.528 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,210.108 | 1,230.076 | -599.054 | 1,198.108 | 3.420 | 3 | 0.331 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,106.588 | 1,116.571 | -550.294 | 1,100.588 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,110.915 | 1,130.882 | -549.457 | 1,098.915 | 1.673 | 3 | 0.643 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,421.916 | 1,431.899 | -707.958 | 1,415.916 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,425.238 | 1,445.205 | -706.619 | 1,413.238 | 2.678 | 3 | 0.444 |
esteem | null | 3 | 756.194 | 766.178 | -375.097 | 750.194 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 761.570 | 781.538 | -374.785 | 749.570 | 0.624 | 3 | 0.891 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,077.591 | 1,087.575 | -535.795 | 1,071.591 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,082.446 | 1,102.413 | -535.223 | 1,070.446 | 1.145 | 3 | 0.766 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,143.558 | 1,153.542 | -568.779 | 1,137.558 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,148.550 | 1,168.517 | -568.275 | 1,136.550 | 1.008 | 3 | 0.799 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,352.402 | 1,362.385 | -673.201 | 1,346.402 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,357.448 | 1,377.415 | -672.724 | 1,345.448 | 0.954 | 3 | 0.812 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,126.720 | 1,136.704 | -560.360 | 1,120.720 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,131.008 | 1,150.976 | -559.504 | 1,119.008 | 1.712 | 3 | 0.634 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 945.178 | 955.162 | -469.589 | 939.178 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 947.395 | 967.362 | -467.698 | 935.395 | 3.783 | 3 | 0.286 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,017.486 | 1,027.469 | -505.743 | 1,011.486 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,020.892 | 1,040.859 | -504.446 | 1,008.892 | 2.594 | 3 | 0.459 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,066.265 | 1,076.249 | -530.133 | 1,060.265 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,065.386 | 1,085.353 | -526.693 | 1,053.386 | 6.879 | 3 | 0.076 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,084.017 | 1,094.001 | -539.009 | 1,078.017 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,087.039 | 1,107.007 | -537.520 | 1,075.039 | 2.978 | 3 | 0.395 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,083.456 | 1,093.439 | -538.728 | 1,077.456 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,085.062 | 1,105.030 | -536.531 | 1,073.062 | 4.394 | 3 | 0.222 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,488.027 | 1,498.011 | -741.014 | 1,482.027 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,488.624 | 1,508.591 | -738.312 | 1,476.624 | 5.403 | 3 | 0.145 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 72 | 3.25 ± 1.18 | 70 | 3.13 ± 1.18 | 0.539 | 0.127 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 32 | 3.27 ± 1.15 | -0.022 | 32 | 3.62 ± 1.15 | -0.510 | 0.230 | -0.361 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 72 | 17.89 ± 2.86 | 70 | 17.97 ± 2.86 | 0.864 | -0.040 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 32 | 17.40 ± 2.70 | 0.236 | 32 | 18.45 ± 2.70 | -0.230 | 0.120 | -0.505 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 72 | 29.83 ± 5.15 | 70 | 30.11 ± 5.15 | 0.746 | -0.100 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 32 | 30.60 ± 4.40 | -0.273 | 32 | 31.88 ± 4.42 | -0.629 | 0.247 | -0.456 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 72 | 11.67 ± 2.08 | 70 | 11.91 ± 2.08 | 0.478 | -0.221 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 32 | 11.26 ± 1.77 | 0.359 | 32 | 12.19 ± 1.78 | -0.243 | 0.038 | -0.823 |
ras_goal | 1st | 72 | 17.12 ± 3.17 | 70 | 17.56 ± 3.17 | 0.417 | -0.219 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 32 | 17.01 ± 2.83 | 0.059 | 32 | 18.46 ± 2.84 | -0.457 | 0.042 | -0.735 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 72 | 12.99 ± 2.87 | 70 | 13.41 ± 2.87 | 0.376 | -0.277 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 32 | 13.36 ± 2.45 | -0.242 | 32 | 14.61 ± 2.46 | -0.771 | 0.043 | -0.806 |
ras_domination | 1st | 72 | 10.17 ± 2.34 | 70 | 9.67 ± 2.34 | 0.209 | 0.305 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 32 | 9.74 ± 2.17 | 0.265 | 32 | 10.65 ± 2.17 | -0.604 | 0.093 | -0.564 |
symptom | 1st | 72 | 29.81 ± 9.38 | 70 | 30.04 ± 9.38 | 0.880 | -0.061 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 32 | 29.49 ± 7.39 | 0.082 | 32 | 28.34 ± 7.44 | 0.437 | 0.538 | 0.294 |
slof_work | 1st | 72 | 22.75 ± 4.81 | 70 | 22.07 ± 4.81 | 0.402 | 0.260 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 32 | 22.40 ± 4.10 | 0.135 | 32 | 22.29 ± 4.12 | -0.083 | 0.914 | 0.043 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 72 | 24.82 ± 5.99 | 70 | 25.49 ± 5.99 | 0.509 | -0.215 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 32 | 24.27 ± 5.03 | 0.177 | 32 | 25.92 ± 5.06 | -0.140 | 0.192 | -0.532 |
satisfaction | 1st | 72 | 19.93 ± 7.25 | 70 | 21.09 ± 7.25 | 0.344 | -0.304 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 32 | 20.60 ± 6.11 | -0.177 | 32 | 22.38 ± 6.14 | -0.342 | 0.247 | -0.469 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 72 | 10.64 ± 3.76 | 70 | 11.17 ± 3.76 | 0.401 | -0.288 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 32 | 10.90 ± 3.11 | -0.141 | 32 | 11.42 ± 3.13 | -0.135 | 0.504 | -0.282 |
mhc_social | 1st | 72 | 14.67 ± 5.84 | 70 | 15.27 ± 5.84 | 0.538 | -0.191 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 32 | 15.44 ± 4.97 | -0.246 | 32 | 16.31 ± 4.99 | -0.328 | 0.488 | -0.274 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 72 | 21.78 ± 6.69 | 70 | 22.00 ± 6.69 | 0.843 | -0.061 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 32 | 22.58 ± 5.71 | -0.221 | 32 | 22.85 ± 5.74 | -0.233 | 0.851 | -0.074 |
resilisnce | 1st | 72 | 16.26 ± 4.60 | 70 | 17.04 ± 4.60 | 0.314 | -0.297 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 32 | 16.30 ± 3.99 | -0.014 | 32 | 18.82 ± 4.00 | -0.679 | 0.012 | -0.962 |
social_provision | 1st | 72 | 13.10 ± 2.86 | 70 | 14.01 ± 2.86 | 0.058 | -0.526 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 32 | 12.46 ± 2.54 | 0.364 | 32 | 14.23 ± 2.55 | -0.124 | 0.006 | -1.014 |
els_value_living | 1st | 72 | 16.58 ± 3.18 | 70 | 17.30 ± 3.18 | 0.181 | -0.408 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 32 | 16.81 ± 2.73 | -0.132 | 32 | 17.72 ± 2.74 | -0.237 | 0.188 | -0.513 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 72 | 12.35 ± 3.37 | 70 | 13.09 ± 3.37 | 0.194 | -0.463 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 32 | 12.72 ± 2.75 | -0.236 | 32 | 13.55 ± 2.77 | -0.294 | 0.231 | -0.520 |
els | 1st | 72 | 28.93 ± 5.99 | 70 | 30.39 ± 5.99 | 0.150 | -0.539 | ||
els | 2nd | 32 | 29.54 ± 4.83 | -0.227 | 32 | 31.20 ± 4.86 | -0.302 | 0.173 | -0.614 |
social_connect | 1st | 72 | 26.75 ± 9.65 | 70 | 26.40 ± 9.65 | 0.829 | 0.080 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 32 | 27.82 ± 7.78 | -0.246 | 32 | 23.71 ± 7.83 | 0.617 | 0.036 | 0.944 |
shs_agency | 1st | 72 | 13.90 ± 5.16 | 70 | 14.69 ± 5.16 | 0.368 | -0.320 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 32 | 13.84 ± 4.22 | 0.024 | 32 | 15.52 ± 4.25 | -0.339 | 0.116 | -0.683 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 72 | 15.65 ± 4.02 | 70 | 16.39 ± 4.02 | 0.279 | -0.370 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 32 | 15.76 ± 3.32 | -0.054 | 32 | 16.62 ± 3.34 | -0.119 | 0.302 | -0.435 |
shs | 1st | 72 | 29.56 ± 8.76 | 70 | 31.07 ± 8.76 | 0.304 | -0.374 | ||
shs | 2nd | 32 | 29.59 ± 7.11 | -0.009 | 32 | 32.12 ± 7.15 | -0.258 | 0.158 | -0.623 |
esteem | 1st | 72 | 12.62 ± 1.54 | 70 | 12.57 ± 1.54 | 0.837 | 0.044 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 32 | 12.75 ± 1.49 | -0.105 | 32 | 12.74 ± 1.49 | -0.138 | 0.971 | 0.011 |
mlq_search | 1st | 72 | 14.64 ± 3.51 | 70 | 15.00 ± 3.51 | 0.540 | -0.160 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 32 | 15.13 ± 3.17 | -0.217 | 32 | 14.78 ± 3.17 | 0.096 | 0.666 | 0.152 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 72 | 13.32 ± 4.25 | 70 | 13.53 ± 4.25 | 0.770 | -0.087 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 32 | 13.67 ± 3.67 | -0.145 | 32 | 13.94 ± 3.69 | -0.170 | 0.769 | -0.113 |
mlq | 1st | 72 | 27.96 ± 7.01 | 70 | 28.53 ± 7.01 | 0.628 | -0.140 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 32 | 28.80 ± 6.11 | -0.206 | 32 | 28.74 ± 6.13 | -0.051 | 0.969 | 0.015 |
empower | 1st | 72 | 18.93 ± 4.23 | 70 | 19.56 ± 4.23 | 0.379 | -0.305 | ||
empower | 2nd | 32 | 19.47 ± 3.49 | -0.262 | 32 | 19.48 ± 3.51 | 0.038 | 0.991 | -0.005 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 72 | 14.47 ± 2.49 | 70 | 14.59 ± 2.49 | 0.787 | -0.067 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 32 | 14.29 ± 2.30 | 0.107 | 32 | 15.25 ± 2.30 | -0.391 | 0.096 | -0.565 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 72 | 11.97 ± 3.14 | 70 | 11.24 ± 3.14 | 0.168 | 0.423 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 32 | 11.84 ± 2.69 | 0.076 | 32 | 11.02 ± 2.70 | 0.131 | 0.223 | 0.477 |
sss_affective | 1st | 72 | 10.01 ± 3.51 | 70 | 9.87 ± 3.51 | 0.809 | 0.075 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 32 | 10.03 ± 2.99 | -0.007 | 32 | 8.73 ± 3.00 | 0.602 | 0.085 | 0.684 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 72 | 9.88 ± 3.71 | 70 | 9.44 ± 3.71 | 0.488 | 0.218 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 32 | 9.71 ± 3.15 | 0.083 | 32 | 8.78 ± 3.16 | 0.336 | 0.237 | 0.471 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 72 | 8.26 ± 3.66 | 70 | 8.14 ± 3.66 | 0.844 | 0.060 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 32 | 8.68 ± 3.14 | -0.206 | 32 | 7.29 ± 3.15 | 0.419 | 0.080 | 0.686 |
sss | 1st | 72 | 28.15 ± 10.08 | 70 | 27.46 ± 10.08 | 0.682 | 0.142 | ||
sss | 2nd | 32 | 28.32 ± 8.31 | -0.034 | 32 | 24.90 ± 8.35 | 0.522 | 0.102 | 0.698 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(189.17) = -0.62, p = 0.539, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.27)
2st
t(195.68) = 1.20, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.91)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(179.79) = 0.17, p = 0.864, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.03)
2st
t(193.69) = 1.56, p = 0.120, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.28 to 2.39)
ras_confidence
1st
t(160.99) = 0.33, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.43 to 1.99)
2st
t(199.03) = 1.16, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.89 to 3.45)
ras_willingness
1st
t(160.61) = 0.71, p = 0.478, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.94)
2st
t(199.24) = 2.08, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.80)
ras_goal
1st
t(168.26) = 0.81, p = 0.417, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.48)
2st
t(195.41) = 2.05, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.85)
ras_reliance
1st
t(160.47) = 0.89, p = 0.376, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.38)
2st
t(199.32) = 2.04, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (0.04 to 2.46)
ras_domination
1st
t(175.78) = -1.26, p = 0.209, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.28)
2st
t(193.71) = 1.69, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.99)
symptom
1st
t(151.56) = 0.15, p = 0.880, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.87 to 3.35)
2st
t(201.36) = -0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-4.80 to 2.51)
slof_work
1st
t(160.72) = -0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.27 to 0.92)
2st
t(199.18) = -0.11, p = 0.914, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.14 to 1.92)
slof_relationship
1st
t(158.78) = 0.66, p = 0.509, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.65)
2st
t(200.27) = 1.31, p = 0.192, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.84 to 4.14)
satisfaction
1st
t(159.17) = 0.95, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.25 to 3.56)
2st
t(200.06) = 1.16, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.24 to 4.80)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(156.72) = 0.84, p = 0.401, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.78)
2st
t(201.28) = 0.67, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.02 to 2.06)
mhc_social
1st
t(160.67) = 0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.54)
2st
t(199.21) = 0.69, p = 0.488, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.32)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(161.04) = 0.20, p = 0.843, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.99 to 2.44)
2st
t(198.99) = 0.19, p = 0.851, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.55 to 3.09)
resilisnce
1st
t(163.25) = 1.01, p = 0.314, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.30)
2st
t(197.75) = 2.53, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (0.56 to 4.49)
social_provision
1st
t(166.85) = 1.91, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.87)
2st
t(195.98) = 2.78, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (0.51 to 3.02)
els_value_living
1st
t(161.66) = 1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.77)
2st
t(198.64) = 1.32, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.25)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(155.39) = 1.31, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.86)
2st
t(201.76) = 1.20, p = 0.231, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.19)
els
1st
t(153.85) = 1.45, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.53 to 3.44)
2st
t(202.00) = 1.37, p = 0.173, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.73 to 4.04)
social_connect
1st
t(153.89) = -0.22, p = 0.829, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-3.55 to 2.85)
2st
t(202.00) = -2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = 0.94, 95% CI (-7.96 to -0.26)
shs_agency
1st
t(155.45) = 0.90, p = 0.368, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.50)
2st
t(201.74) = 1.58, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.41 to 3.76)
shs_pathway
1st
t(156.84) = 1.09, p = 0.279, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.06)
2st
t(201.23) = 1.03, p = 0.302, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.50)
shs
1st
t(154.67) = 1.03, p = 0.304, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.39 to 4.42)
2st
t(201.92) = 1.42, p = 0.158, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.99 to 6.04)
esteem
1st
t(186.11) = -0.21, p = 0.837, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.46)
2st
t(194.75) = -0.04, p = 0.971, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.72)
mlq_search
1st
t(170.20) = 0.61, p = 0.540, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.52)
2st
t(194.76) = -0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.91 to 1.22)
mlq_presence
1st
t(162.81) = 0.29, p = 0.770, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.62)
2st
t(197.99) = 0.29, p = 0.769, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.08)
mlq
1st
t(164.05) = 0.48, p = 0.628, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.89)
2st
t(197.33) = -0.04, p = 0.969, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-3.08 to 2.96)
empower
1st
t(156.28) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.03)
2st
t(201.46) = 0.01, p = 0.991, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.71 to 1.73)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(174.50) = 0.27, p = 0.787, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.94)
2st
t(193.84) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.10)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(161.40) = -1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.77 to 0.31)
2st
t(198.79) = -1.22, p = 0.223, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.15 to 0.50)
sss_affective
1st
t(160.51) = -0.24, p = 0.809, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.02)
2st
t(199.30) = -1.73, p = 0.085, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-2.77 to 0.18)
sss_behavior
1st
t(160.22) = -0.69, p = 0.488, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.66 to 0.80)
2st
t(199.47) = -1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-2.49 to 0.62)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(161.63) = -0.20, p = 0.844, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.09)
2st
t(198.66) = -1.76, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-2.94 to 0.16)
sss
1st
t(156.33) = -0.41, p = 0.682, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-4.04 to 2.65)
2st
t(201.44) = -1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-7.53 to 0.69)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(96.33) = 2.24, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.92)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(87.61) = 0.99, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.45)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(74.19) = 2.61, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.42 to 3.11)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(73.96) = 1.01, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.81)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(78.98) = 1.93, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.84)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(73.87) = 3.20, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.45 to 1.94)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(84.42) = 2.58, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.74)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(68.49) = -1.79, p = 0.157, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.60 to 0.20)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(74.03) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.47)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(72.82) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.93)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(73.06) = 1.42, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.53 to 3.12)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(71.56) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.14)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(73.99) = 1.36, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.48 to 2.55)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(74.23) = 0.97, p = 0.670, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.60)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(75.64) = 2.83, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.53 to 3.03)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(78.02) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.04)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(74.62) = 0.99, p = 0.654, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.26)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(70.75) = 1.21, p = 0.461, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.24)
els
1st vs 2st
t(69.83) = 1.24, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.50 to 2.13)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(69.85) = -2.53, p = 0.027, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-4.81 to -0.57)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(70.79) = 1.40, p = 0.333, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.02)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(71.63) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.19)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(70.32) = 1.06, p = 0.584, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.92 to 3.01)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(93.22) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.72)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(80.33) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.85)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(75.36) = 0.71, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.56)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(76.16) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.14)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(71.29) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.92)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(83.45) = 1.67, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.46)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(74.46) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.60)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(73.89) = -2.50, p = 0.029, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.05 to -0.23)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(73.71) = -1.40, p = 0.334, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.29)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(74.60) = -1.75, p = 0.170, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.82 to 0.12)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(71.32) = -2.15, p = 0.069, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-4.93 to -0.19)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(97.34) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.45)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(88.34) = -1.02, p = 0.624, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.46 to 0.47)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(74.51) = 1.14, p = 0.520, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.11)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(74.27) = -1.49, p = 0.280, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.13)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(79.44) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.82)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(74.18) = 1.00, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.12)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(85.04) = -1.13, p = 0.520, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.32)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(68.65) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.22 to 1.58)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(74.34) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.90)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(73.10) = -0.73, p = 0.932, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.94)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(73.35) = 0.73, p = 0.931, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.49)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(71.80) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.16)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(74.31) = 1.02, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.29)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(74.55) = 0.92, p = 0.723, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.55)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(76.01) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.29)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(78.45) = -1.53, p = 0.260, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.46 to 0.19)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(74.95) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.07)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(70.98) = 0.97, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.15)
els
1st vs 2st
t(70.03) = 0.93, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.92)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(70.05) = 1.01, p = 0.630, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.04 to 3.19)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(71.01) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.13)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(71.87) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.06)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(70.53) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.93 to 2.00)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(94.14) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.68)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(80.83) = 0.92, p = 0.723, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.55)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(75.71) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.49)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(76.54) = 0.86, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.77)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(71.53) = 1.08, p = 0.567, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.53)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(84.04) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.61)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(74.78) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.69)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(74.20) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.92)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(74.02) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.79)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(74.94) = 0.86, p = 0.785, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.38)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(71.56) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.20 to 2.53)
Plot
